Nice image! It had a disorienting effect on me until I realized what it was. It reminded me of driving across the prairie in North Dakota one time, on a very narrow one lane road through wheat fields, just kind of taking in the scene, when several dark bugs walked across my windshield. I blinked, and the bugs became crows flying across the field and I realized how my eyes had misinterpreted their image. Or, rather, how my eyes had seen their image but my expectations led me to misinterpret them.

I take it that this image is a reflection of clouds and plant stuff in water, but it has a strong pull to *not* see it that way, producing really interesting tension.

You need a better dictionary, Dale. Another, and probably the most used definition now that most people don't spin (unless they're politicians) is: "a woman or women collectively." Check it out in an unabridged.

Since you're the one who pontificated on "political correctness" and your mastery of the English language, perhaps you're the one who should study more. When I need more than what I've given you, I consult the etymology in the Oxford dictionary. That's that "really big" dictionary you see in the library.

That certainly is the way that I interpreted it, and speaking as one who does try to watch my language, I respect your opinion on the subject, and I also agree that there is a lot of linguistic ugliness that can and should be avoided One amusing story...... I had a good but very PC friend who insisted on refering to her Leatherman tool as a Leatherperson tool, I tried to explain that Tim Leatherman might not really appreciate it, but old feminist habits die hard

That's very cute, until you go looking for accessories on the Internet. That's when you come face to face with reality. Words are "just words" after all, but they can also get you into big trouble, so I'm not at all impressed with peoples' arguments of innocence. And feminists are a better class of people.

Ray, When you finish getting the dog to create the wagtail panel, set the panel flat, then, taking a piece of plywood, dump out several colored paints from various tubes to make a palette. Finally, get the dog to walk over the palette and over the panel so that his pawprints will be added to his tailprints.

Thanks for the advice, but I really think that would be a complete mishmash of style and technique. I lean towards simplicity in my art works.

I would point out that pretty much every innovation in art and music was treated with considerable scorn and mockery. I recall that 'The Rite Of Spring' caused a riot at its first performance and that Van Gough didn't sell a single painting during his life (well maybe one, I'm too lazy to look it up) and died thinking himself a total failure as an artist. So perhaps you might want to hold open a space for the thought that there might be just a bit more to artists like Pollack than is apparent at the moment.

I know! I know! I once had the opportunity to buy an elephant painting in Thailand but couldn't get my hand into my wallet fast enough because I was holding a camera.

The following shot is of a very proud elephant who has just painted some lovely red flowers.

Thanks for the advice, but I really think that would be a complete mishmash of style and technique. I lean towards simplicity in my art works.

Well, simplicity has its place, but think of the commentary you could do on the significance of the arrangements of tailprints versus pawprints.

A couple months ago I was in the Orlando Museum of Art looking at a painting that resembled a two-dimensional rendition of the "installation" -- don't remember where it happened -- that got a janitor fired when he cleaned it up and dumped it in the trash. Then I looked at the artist's explanation of the painting and found that it was a portrait of his mother. Since a docent was nearby I tried to suppress my reaction, but she caught me laughing and gave me a very dirty look.

That's very cute, until you go looking for accessories on the Internet. That's when you come face to face with reality. Words are "just words" after all, but they can also get you into big trouble, so I'm not at all impressed with peoples' arguments of innocence. And feminists are a better class of people.

Dale, are you sure you want to get in even farther over your head than you already are? You're probably already one of the world's top contenders for posterior orifice of the year.

I would point out that pretty much every innovation in art and music was treated with considerable scorn and mockery. I recall that 'The Rite Of Spring' caused a riot at its first performance and that Van Gough didn't sell a single painting during his life (well maybe one, I'm too lazy to look it up) and died thinking himself a total failure as an artist. So perhaps you might want to hold open a space for the thought that there might be just a bit more to artists like Pollack than is apparent at the moment.

Yes, Van Gogh was the exact opposite of Pollock. Nobody realized how fine Van Gogh's paintings were during his lifetime and nobody realized how bad Pollock's paintings were during his lifetime. (That's not actually true, but I needed to give the sentence some symmetry.) I'd vote for Jackson Pollock's paintings as perhaps the most successful "fine art" put-on of the twentieth century. Nowadays Christo carries on with the tradition.

Dale, are you sure you want to get in even farther over your head than you already are? You're probably already one of the world's top contenders for posterior orifice of the year.

That accusation, along with your proven bigotry, and your incessant name dropping of "masters" to shore up your own lack of self-esteem tells who you are. If you need to keep posting accusations to make yourself feel better, go right ahead. Do bear in mind that I'm a lot smarter than you.

Calling someone an A**hole on the forum is a sign of low intelligence, Russ. You also live in a man-centric world of the past, where all of your favorite photo masters, music composers, etc. are men. Not the real world.

Oh good grief!! Are you teenagers just pretending to be actual adults?

This is exactly why I most usually just lurk. Why don't you'all either get over it, take it to PM's, or over to the Coffee Corner if you think there's actually something worth discussing that anyone else might care about and let's get back to discussing something interesting like........ Photographic Styles and maybe even some comments about JPC's essay.

I know! I know! I once had the opportunity to buy an elephant painting in Thailand but couldn't get my hand into my wallet fast enough because I was holding a camera.

The following shot is of a very proud elephant who has just painted some lovely red flowers.

[attachment=14579:1964.jpg]

I like that picture quite a bit, it must have been fun to see. It does raise some interesting questions as to the nature of art, after all, we photographers are primarily in the business of documenting 'found' naturally occurring scenes and calling it art. If a wild elephant happened to have made some interesting construction of flowers, fruits. leaves and such and one of us were to come along and document it in some compositionally interesting manner, print it big and then hang it in a show, no one would bat an eye at calling it 'art'. Same with a tame elephant, so one could argue that a photo of that canvas, regardless of the elephants 'intent' (whatever that means could arguably be called 'art', so why not the canvas itself?

Note that I'm not taking a position on this, but it is an interesting line of inquiry.

If a wild elephant happened to have made some interesting construction of flowers, fruits. leaves and such and one of us were to come along and document it in some compositionally interesting manner, print it big and then hang it in a show, no one would bat an eye at calling it 'art'. Same with a tame elephant, so one could argue that a photo of that canvas, regardless of the elephants 'intent' (whatever that means could arguably be called 'art', so why not the canvas itself?

Ed, "No one" may be going a bit far. All I have to do to see something put together in a compositionally interesting manner is look out my window toward Pikes Peak, but people don't normally call that magnificent work of art "art." Come to think of it, they probably should.

Ed, "No one" may be going a bit far. All I have to do to see something put together in a compositionally interesting manner is look out my window toward Pikes Peak, but people don't normally call that magnificent work of art "art." Come to think of it, they probably should.

You mean that if you were to photograph that view, print it well, frame and display it, that you would not consider that you'd accomplished something of at least some artistic merit?

I do wish to clarify that when I said 'document' the elephants interesting construction, I meant to take a photograph of it. And the noncontroversial nature of it being 'art' would apply to that photograph. I admit that then moving to the point that should we carefully gather up the actual stuff the elephant did, and carefully and exactly reproduce it in some gallery, would that be 'art' is a more open, but nonetheless interesting question.

You mean that if you were to photograph that view, print it well, frame and display it, that you would not consider that you'd accomplished something of at least some artistic merit?

I do wish to clarify that when I said 'document' the elephants interesting construction, I meant to take a photograph of it. And the noncontroversial nature of it being 'art' would apply to that photograph. I admit that then moving to the point that should we carefully gather up the actual stuff the elephant did, and carefully and exactly reproduce it in some gallery, would that be 'art' is a more open, but nonetheless interesting question.

Ed, I agree. It's the interesting question: "What is art?", which no one yet has answered adequately since the question calls for a subjective definition. As far as I'm concerned, in order for something to be art, whether it be music, poetry, painting, photography, pottery, glass, etc., it has to hit me with a transcendental jolt -- an experience I can't put into words. I'm afraid the elephant's painting doesn't quite fall into that category. I lived for a year and a half in Thailand and, happily, never saw an elephant in the act of painting. But my next door neighbor went to Thailand for a week last year and brought back an elephant painting. I've examined it carefully and I have to agree, it looks like a painting executed by an elephant. (Not that I have anything against elephants.) Since I have no other elephant paintings to compare it with I can't really say whether or not it's a good elephant painting.